In 2002 the Minister of External Affairs of India made a request for the applicant’s extradition. In his request, the Minister said that the applicant was suspected of having played a key role in the major terrorist attacks carried out in Bombay in 1993.

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 86

May 2006

In 2002 the Minister of External Affairs of India made a request for the applicant’s extradition. In his request, the Minister said that the applicant was suspected of having played a key role in the major terrorist attacks carried out in Bombay in 1993. - 26844/04

Decision 9.5.2006 [Section II]

Article 2

Article 2-1

Death penalty

Extradition to India of a terrorist suspect, following governmental assurances excluding capital punishment: inadmissible

Article 3

Extradition

Extradition to India of a terrorist suspect, allegedly entailing risk of ill-treatment due to his religion and ethnic origin: inadmissible

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Extradition to India of a terrorist suspect, allegedly entailing risk of unfair trial: inadmissible

In 2002 the Minister of External Affairs of India made a request for the applicant’s extradition. In his request, the Minister said that the applicant was suspected of having played a key role in the major terrorist attacks carried out in Bombay in 1993. Under the relevant Indian legislation, the offences were punishable by the death sentence or life imprisonment. In response to a request for further information made by the Portuguese authorities, the Deputy Prime Minister of India gave solemn assurances that the applicant, if extradited to India, would not face the death penalty or a prison sentence exceeding 25 years. The Deputy Prime Minister based these assurances on the provisions of the Indian Constitution, the country’s Extradition Act and its Code of Criminal Procedure. The court granted the extradition request. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the assurances given were inadequate and that his extradition would be in breach of the Convention. During the cassation proceedings, the Indian Government reiterated before the Supreme Court the assurances given by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, after observing that the assurances given by the Indian Deputy Prime Minister averted any danger that the applicant might receive a death sentence or life imprisonment. The Supreme Court also saw no evidence of any risk that the applicant might be placed at a disadvantage before the courts on account of his religion. In 2005 the applicant was handed over to the Indian authorities.

Article 2 – In the Court’s view, the Portuguese courts had rightly considered the legal, political and diplomatic assurances given by the Indian Government in the present case to be adequate and convincing. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court could not reverse the findings of the domestic courts, which had examined the extradition request in adversarial proceedings and had been able to hear evidence directly from the parties, who, among other things, had attached to the case file a large number of opinions from experts in Indian law. The Portuguese Government’s good faith could not be called into question in this case, seeing that what was in issue was compliance with international law by India, a State which could not be said not to be based on the rule of law: manifestly ill-founded.

Article 3 – Proceedings had been brought against the applicant on account of his alleged criminal acts and not on account of his religion or ethnic origin. The Portuguese courts had scrutinised the complaints made by the applicant in that regard in detail and had concluded, after hearing evidence from the applicant and from the large number of witnesses called by the parties, that there was no real danger of the applicant’s being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention: manifestly ill-founded.

Article 6 – As this was an extradition case, the applicant was required to prove the “flagrant” nature of the denial of justice which he feared. In the instant case the applicant had not adduced any evidence to show that, having regard to the relevant Indian rules of procedure, there were substantial grounds for believing that his trial would take place in conditions that contravened Article 6: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy